Our Say: Balance must be a goal as new environmental order takes shape in Annapolis

The passage of two measures Monday night by the Annapolis City Council was aimed at protecting the environment. But they also served to signal a new ethos in effect at City Hall.

One new law will ban restaurants from using polystyrene containers, known to most by the trademarked name Styrofoam in the shape of take-out boxes, plates and cups. This stuff is pernicious and, along with other forms of plastic, is a significant source of pollution found in city waterways and the wider world.

The second vote was more symbolic. The council approved a resolution supporting an application to make all Anne Arundel County waterways a no-discharge zone. Dumping raw sewage is already banned, but federally approved systems allow boaters to treat their waste with chemicals and flush it into the waterways.

Arguments against both kinds of measures were the same old hogwash, cost and the pain of going first. Businesses will pass on costs to customers, who can afford to pay just a little more for take-out, use a pump-out station or upgrade marine sanitation systems.

As for the notion that Annapolis shouldn’t do it because others — Anne Arundel County first among others — haven’t is snake oil. Common-sense steps forward have to start somewhere, and fortune favors the bold.

This, however, was the easy stuff in this new City Hall era. Next up comes attempts to deal with development.

One measure would protect Annapolis forests by removing a reforestation credit developers use to reduce their responsibilities to replant trees. Under the ordinance, developers would have to replace every acre of trees cut with another acre of trees.

The second would instruct city staff members to enforce a higher standard of stormwater treatment — 100 percent treatment on redevelopment sites and 150 percent on new development sites.

Opponents make the argument that tighter regulation will make it harder to build new homes, offices and shops in a city that already suffers a reputation as hostile to developers. Proponents argue that development does not pay for its true costs, and the changes just bring reality into line with the impact on forest cover, water quality and man-made assets such as roads, schools and emergency services.

Neither argument is completely wrong.

But as new members of the council work with the veterans to push this environmental priority, they need to keep in mind that they are not just setting up roadblocks. They are creating the guideposts to a future Annapolis. Expanding the tax base through new development and protecting existing resources is a yin-yang proposition.

Balance is required for this to work.

The council and the development community active in Annapolis must work together to create a city that works environmentally and economically. Annapolis can’t just be a great place to live — it has to be a great place where people can afford to live.